Re: [PATCH 00/10] [GIT PULL] tracing: various fixes

Ingo Molnar
2011-12-03T09:22:39Z

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 09:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > Please pull the latest tip/perf/core tree, which can be found at:
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git
> > > tip/perf/core
> > >
> > > Head SHA1: 7e9a49ef542610609144d1afcd516dc3fafac4d6
> > >
> > >
> > > Gleb Natapov (1):
> > > jump_label: jump_label_inc may return before the code is patched
> > >
> > > Ilya Dryomov (1):
> > > tracing: fix event_subsystem ref counting
> > >
> > > Jiri Olsa (1):
> > > tracing/latency: Fix header output for latency tracers
> > >
> > > Li Zefan (2):
> > > tracing: Restore system filter behavior
> > > tracing: update Documentation on max preds limit
> > >
> > > Steven Rostedt (5):
> > > tracing: Add boiler plate for subsystem filter
> > > lockdep: Show subclass in pretty print of lockdep output
> > > ftrace: Remove force undef config value left for testing
> > > perf: Fix parsing of __print_flags() in TP_printk()
> > > ftrace: Fix hash record accounting bug
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Documentation/trace/events.txt | 2 --
> > > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 ++
> > > kernel/jump_label.c | 3 ++-
> > > kernel/lockdep.c | 30 +++++++++++++-----------------
> > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 5 +++--
> > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > kernel/trace/trace.h | 1 +
> > > kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 1 -
> > > kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > > kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > > tools/perf/util/trace-event-parse.c | 2 ++
> > > 12 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > Pulled, thanks a lot Steve!
>
> Hi Ingo,
>
> All these were bug fixes and I was hopping that it would have
> been pushed to Linus. I know it just missed the merge window
> (it was posted during -rc1) but they are fixes, not
> enhancements, and I still believe they are fine for an -rc3
> release. I would have even had it pushed before -rc1 but it
> took time running them through all my tests.

Hm, not all were regression fixes and the branch was named
*/core so i took it into perf/core.

Could you perhaps cherry-pick the most crutial regression fixes
into an urgent branch? We could still push that upstream.

Thanks,

Ingo